Problem with atheism

[redcom11]

You claim to have an open mind. Let's test it.

Here is a statement:

I have an absence in belief in existence of science.

(Science because that is the more potent and favoured weapon of an aethist).

Let's start at the Big Bang.

First question:

What was there before the Big Bang.

This is crucial, because the Big Bang is the creationist theory of scientists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You claim to have an open mind. Let's test it.

Here is a statement:

I have an absence in belief in existence of science.

(Science because that is the more potent and favoured weapon of an aethist).

I wasn't aware science was a weapon, especially not a weapon of just atheists.

Let's start at the Big Bang.

First question:

What was there before the Big Bang.

This is crucial, because the Big Bang is the creationist theory of scientists.

We have absolutely no idea. Before the planck time the laws of physics kind of break down, so we have no clear idea of what, if anything, came before the big bang, or even if the notion of "before" the big bang is a valid concept. All we have currently are a handful hypotheses.

Also, how does this have any relevancy to me being "open minded" or anything we previously discussed?

 

[redcom11]

The previous discussions were aimless. Let's move from point to point.

So what science suggests is that:

i) The universe began some 13.7 billion years ago
ii) It started with a big bang
iii) It began from nothing (absolute nothing)
iv) And from nothing the entire universe and all we see and know of it was created

and lastly

v) there was nothing before the big bang

also, I can understand your statement 'we don't know'. I can't understand 'if the notion of before big bang is a valid concept'...explain please.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The previous discussions were aimless. Let's move from point to point.

So what science suggests is that:

i) The universe began some 13.7 billion years ago
ii) It started with a big bang
iii) It began from nothing (absolute nothing)

Wrong. It started from a singular, infinitely dense particle known as the singularity. Where that particle came from, we don't know.

iv) And from nothing the entire universe and all we see and know of it was created

and lastly

v) there was nothing before the big bang

I already said that we don't know what came before the big bang. Did you read the answer I gave you?

also, I can understand your statement 'we don't know'. I can't understand 'if the notion of before big bang is a valid concept'...explain please.

Because we don't know if time even existed before the big bang, in which case the notion of there being a "before" the big bang is a misnomer.

 

[Orias]

I already said that we don't know what came before the big bang. Did you read the answer I gave you?

You could always offer the scientific theories that touch down on this subject to oblige the man

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You could always offer the scientific theories that touch down on this subject to oblige the man

I've given him a pretty bog-standard and simplified explanation of the singularity. If there's anything else he'd like to know, he's more than welcome to ask.

 

[redcom11]

Your information is not updated.

First, "it started from a singular infinitely dense particle" is now a rejected theory. What you are referring to is Lamaitre's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". However, given its several flaws it is now more or less losing favour within the scientific community.

It would appear, if you worked backwards in time to the point just before the Big Bang, you would not arrive at an "singular infinitely dense particle" but a particle that condenses continuously till such time it has condensed to infinity. In physics, that is as close to 'nothing', as you can get. It also means, that the theory has failed beyond this point.

A new theory has now been proposed. The "eternal inflation theory" by Andrei Linde (Stanford university), that has now split the scientific community. There are other theories too, however, inflation seems to be the present favourite.

However, there is a radical shift in approach now. For one, Linde proposes that there was "no big bang" at all. In fact, between matter first appearing (yes, physics states that matter just appeared in the universe from nothing, closes guess from energy, where energy came from no one knows)....Prof. Michio Kaku of New York (this is not a direct quote.

Prof. Param Singh (Perimeter Institute) suggests that the universe is not expanding.

However, all agree that matter appeared from nothing (or energy) and that the laws of physics only come into effect ten to the power minus thirty fourth of a second after the big bang.

Before that, not only time but all laws of physics as we know them have to be suspended to even have a working hypothesis (actually its an estimation right now) to explain the existence of the universe.

So what you have here is that the laws of physics if applied to explain how physics came into existence, along with everything else, would fail.

Incidentally, new estimations now claim that there are, in fact, ten to the power of ten to the power of ten to the power of seven multiple universe. And we occupy only one.

Basically, physics is in reality only as close as religion in explaining the coming into being of the universe (the only difference being that with time now we have fancier words of current popular culture to explain....nothing. Just like religion used the fancy words of its popular culture to explain...nothing). What physics can do is measure 'effect', wind the clock back and guess what happened.

 

[Orias]

I've given him a pretty bog-standard and simplified explanation of the singularity. If there's anything else he'd like to know, he's more than welcome to ask.

I know, but over time here I learned that people are more willing to make an argument out of a lack of understanding.

Sometimes its best to just spoon feed people

 

[redcom11]

Orias, you are welcome to join in the discussion. However, your presumption that I know nothing of physics or science is a presumption.

But we will let that presumption hold for now.

Kindly, spoon feed me.

 

[Magic Man]

Orias, you are welcome to join in the discussion. However, your presumption that I know nothing of physics or science is a presumption.

But we will let that presumption hold for now.

Kindly, spoon feed me.

Of course this whole side-discussion is off-topic, but I'm curious. What is your point here with the discussion of the big bang?

 

[AfterGlow]

First, "it started from a singular infinitely dense particle" is now a rejected theory. What you are referring to is Lamaitre's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". However, given its several flaws it is now more or less losing favour within the scientific community.

Correct. A singularity is not material.

It would appear, if you worked backwards in time to the point just before the Big Bang, you would not arrive at an "singular infinitely dense particle" but a particle that condenses continuously till such time it has condensed to infinity. In physics, that is as close to 'nothing', as you can get. It also means, that the theory has failed beyond this point.

You wouldn't arrive at a particle, particles didn't come into existence until (relatively) long after the Big Bang. But yes, conventional physics breaks down at the point of a singularity.

A new theory has now been proposed. The "eternal inflation theory" by Andrei Linde (Stanford university), that has now split the scientific community. There are other theories too, however, inflation seems to be the present favourite.

It's not new, just supplemental to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is still accepted, just instead of a singularity you have false vacuum decay inverting to form true spacetime that still starts from a single point to expand outward.

However, there is a radical shift in approach now. For one, Linde proposes that there was "no big bang" at all. In fact, between matter first appearing (yes, physics states that matter just appeared in the universe from nothing, closes guess from energy, where energy came from no one knows)....Prof. Michio Kaku of New York (this is not a direct quote.

Linde does propose a Big Bang, he just sees it as part of a series of decay and expansion, rather than eminating from a single event.

It's good it's not a direct quote. Matter condensed from energy in the form of quarks.

Prof. Param Singh (Perimeter Institute) suggests that the universe is not expanding.

He's wrong. Red shifting of distant galaxies demonstrates that the universe has expanded and continues to expand.

However, all agree that matter appeared from nothing (or energy) and that the laws of physics only come into effect ten to the power minus thirty fourth of a second after the big bang.

Before that, not only time but all laws of physics as we know them have to be suspended to even have a working hypothesis (actually its an estimation right now) to explain the existence of the universe.

True. But, considering that our current models of physics are based on the universe as it is now, with spacetime and matter being distinct, yet interactive, it would be odd to try to apply them to a point where energy/matter and spacetime are non-distinct, wouldn't you say?

Incidentally, new estimations now claim that there are, in fact, ten to the power of ten to the power of ten to the power of seven multiple universe. And we occupy only one.

Who's doing these estimations? Whoever they are they are wasting their time, trying to estimate how many potential universes there may be is like trying to estimate how long a piece of string is.

Basically, physics is in reality only as close as religion in explaining the coming into being of the universe (the only difference being that with time now we have fancier words of current popular culture to explain....nothing. Just like religion used the fancy words of its popular culture to explain...nothing). What physics can do is measure 'effect', wind the clock back and guess what happened.

No. The difference is that physics makes theories and tries to test those theories by observation. There may be many theories, some which fail and others which contradict, but none of them claim to be anything more than theories, none claim to be the "ultimate truth" which many religions do claim.

 

[redcom11]

Well, its an academic exercise for me (I can only speak for myself).

It started with me saying, in an unrelated discussion, that "not believing in something is also a belief system".

Immortal Flame disagreed.

This went back and forth for some time, without much being achieved.

So I decided to turn the discussion around, by saying

"I have a lack of belief in the existence of science"

And started the discussion right at the beginning of science and religion, big bang, the point where it all came into existence.

And that is where we are. Basically, examining how valid and strong are scientific assertions for the Big Bang theory.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, its an academic exercise for me (I can only speak for myself).

It started with me saying, in an unrelated discussion, that "not believing in something is also a belief system".

Immortal Flame disagreed.

This went back and forth for some time, without much being achieved.

So I decided to turn the discussion around, by saying

"I have a lack of belief in the existence of science"

And started the discussion right at the beginning of science and religion, big bang, the point where it all came into existence.

And that is where we are. Basically, examining how valid and strong are scientific assertions for the Big Bang theory.

First, let me make a suggestion. If you're responding to someone, you should quote them. I assume this was directed at me, though.

Now, I don't see what this discussion of the big bang has to do with the assertion "I have a lack of belief in the existence of science". Whether or not you agree with the big bang theory is irrelevant to the existence of science. The fact that there is a big bang theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of science. And I don't see how that's related to the false claim that not believing in something is also a belief system.

 

[redcom11]

Correct. A singularity is not material.


You wouldn't arrive at a particle, particles didn't come into existence until (relatively) long after the Big Bang. But yes, conventional physics breaks down at the point of a singularity.


- The point is not really what one arrives at, but the fact that physics breaks down. This become relevant further down the line.

It's not new, just supplemental to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is still accepted, just instead of a singularity you have false vacuum decay inverting to form true spacetime that still starts from a single point to expand outward.

- Its new for someone who has not read about it. That was the point.

Linde does propose a Big Bang, he just sees it as part of a series of decay and expansion, rather than eminating from a single event.

It's good it's not a direct quote. Matter condensed from energy in the form of quarks.

- This may not be a direct quote. But here is the direct quote, "You know, the idea sounds impossible, preposterous. I mean, think about it, everything from nothing. The galaxies, the stars the heavens coming from a pin point. I mean how can it be, how can it be that everything comes from nothing." His explanation rests with definition of 'nothing'. And its not quarks. According to him there is an absolute nothing (void of all we know) and a nothing comprising of 'absence of matter'.

He's wrong. Red shifting of distant galaxies demonstrates that the universe has expanded and continues to expand.

- A new compromise formula to balance the inherent contradiction between classical physics and quantum mechanics when applied to creation of the universe has been arrived at. This formula suggests that at the point of singularity mass and energy do not become infinite but rather zero. Suggesting that the entire universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction. The mathematical logic of this theory is still under development and examination....so let's not be hasty and call it wrong...yet.


True. But, considering that our current models of physics are based on the universe as it is now, with spacetime and matter being distinct, yet interactive, it would be odd to try to apply them to a point where energy/matter and spacetime are non-distinct, wouldn't you say?

- Possibly, but opposition to suspension of laws of physics is the very foundation of atheism. Wouldn't you say?

Who's doing these estimations? Whoever they are they are wasting their time, trying to estimate how many potential universes there may be is like trying to estimate how long a piece of string is.

- These estimation were done by Andrei Linde, the same guy who came up with 'eternal inflation'.

No. The difference is that physics makes theories and tries to test those theories by observation. There may be many theories, some which fail and others which contradict, but none of them claim to be anything more than theories, none claim to be the "ultimate truth" which many religions do claim.

The 'ultimate truth' may well be a claim that religious people make. However, even a cursory glance at the history of religion reveals that religion is just as vulnerable to examination and rejection as a scientific theory. Not to go too far, but Judaism led to Christianity, which in turn led to Islam. It may not be scientifically correct, that is another argument, but in as much as its nature to 'examination and rejection' is concerned, it is not that different.

Also, theories may not be put up with the label 'ultimate truth' attached to them, but they are not put up to be proven wrong. When they are put up, they are put up as what is believed to be the truth and presented as such. When science is explained to the non-scientific it is not with a warning that reads "may be subject to change without prior notice or even complete negation. use at own risk."

PS: Where can I learn to use quotes like you guys do?

 

[Oneatatime]

Or, perhaps, it is simply unreasonable to attempt to determine the reason for a persons actions simply based on a belief system alone. How I determine my own action varies from situation to situation. I believe there is a divine "mold" or "form" if you will, from which all appropriate decisions will be discernable. I do not attempt to follow this form for fear of "God's wrath", but rather because I feel that if all were to adhere to these forms that the world would be quite a pleasant place to live in. I feel that believing in a higher power also gives humanity a certain level of brotherhood that would otherwise be absent for myself.

I also think that the distinct difference between those who "believe" or do not "believe" is actually less profound or important than the difference between those who "care" or simply "do not care". For example: I have many friends that believe there is a higher power, and allow themselves to freely be labled as religious. These friends truthfully do not care enough to investigate anything about the religions they were respectively born into, and often do not even fully understand their own faith. They do not follow the rules or "laws" of their religions, yet when asked what they believe, they will happily associate with whatever group it is they were raised into. They perceive these respective "faiths" as duty, rather than something that brings them joy. Rather than holding onto it as a gift, they feel bound to it as punishment and would truthfully rather care only for themselves.

On the other hand, I know atheists who consider the well-being of humanity a personal responsibility, and dedicate their lives to bettering it. These people certainly care about the existence of a higher deity and have searched through scientific and personal means, but never found anything that could conclusively prove to them a God exists. They care very much so, and would in some cases even give their lives for the causes they support.

The last point I would like to make is this: Religion (love it or hate it) is most likely the reason for our "common sense" morals. It has been the guiding force of humanity for so long, that even those who do not practice it still have had many of it's laws passed down to them. An example of this could be theft. There is nothing in the animal kingdom that suggests an individuals "right" to property or a territory is inherent. Rather, you commonly see the "I'm bigger than you so this is mine" animal behavior play out. Why is it that people are taught otherwise? Surely this is a principle that has been passed down from generation to generation via some vessel of information. I think it to be obvious that the first of these great vessels has been religious doctrine. Small children often take things from eachother, therefore, it is apparent that this is not a product of some form of moral evolution.

You talk about a divine mould which is just another way of saying that the views and beliefs held by a religious person reflect the belief system they are a member of. Its innevitable that when you're raised in a religious environment that this goes some way to dictating your view of the world and what you consider to be moral, immoral or somewhere inbetween. Depending on a persons upbringing this moral landscape could be reinforced through the threat of divine punishment, a desire to make the world a better place or a combination of both. That said what a person believes would make the better place from their perspective isn't neccessarily agreed upon by everyone else. The Taliban clearly have a different idea of a moral society than we do for example.

Belief in a power establishes a figurehead which people can follow and we see such behaviour all around us on a daily basis with figureheads that are other humans yet still gather followers. This does promote a degree of social cohesion but its also devisive because not everyone is going to want to follow that particular figurehead and we don't have to look far into history to see how bloody disputes caused by this can be. Political and religious figureheads have and continue to cause endless strife.

Believers and non-believers are both human and so we share similar failings when it comes to how we arrive at morals. An atheist is as much at the mercy of their upbringing as a theists but the atheists doesn't rely on imagined supernatural beings to provide at least partial justication for their morals. This isn't to say atheist morality is being reproach because clearly that isn't the case as they are just as vulnerable to providing false justification for their views. The main difference is that its much easier to deal with non-religious fase justifications than it is religious because the religious won't budge on their religious beliefs and the asssumptions they are founded on. A religious person who believes homosexuals are immoral because the Bible says so will not accept that the Bible isn't a definitive source of morality or that the God they are convinced exists from whichi these morals were derived is probably just an figment of their imagination.

I find your comments about atheists and their search for a higher power somewhat bizzare. The idea that there is a higher power is something that most of us have had shoved down our throats from a young age and which some of us rejected for a variety of reasons but largely because the notion seemed implausable due to a derth of evidence to support it. Some religious people engage in science because they feel that it tells them how their God make things but for an atheist interested in science its more of an open ended enquiry which accepts things as they turn out rather working towards a predicided outcome i.e.Gods existance. In effect you're labelling some atheists as simple people waiting for sufficient proof of Gods existance before jumping onto the God bandwagon with the relgious.

Lastly I think your way way off the mark with your comment that religion is responsible for our common sense morals and your refutation of the evolution or morailty is feeble. Religion in part represents an attempt to simultaneously codify and dictate morality which is why its typically a few generations behind the progression towards a more equal and fair society because there is an element trying to cling onto the old ways of doing things. Religion often stagnates moral progression because its conservative by nature and its fair to say that its largely responsible for the perpetuation of discimination against homosexuals and women around the world. Take away religion or at least marginalise its monopoly on morality and morals become much more changable.

Morals are behavioural strategies adopted by an individual within a society. Obviously things work better if everyone follows the same rules but there will be opportunities to benefit oneself in your cheat every so often. With this in mind humans are just another social species which has rules which members follow or don't follow depending on costs and benefits. Its interesting that you mention stealing because in comparable species stealing is also punished. I remember watching a David Attenborough documentary and a primate (can't remember which species) group were feeding at a river and one of the lower ranks members gave a false danger call causing the others to run away giving him time to grab the best food that would otherwise have been taken by the more dominant in the group. Similarly in humans its really the threat of being caught and the associated punishment which makes us behave. Other behaviours such as reciprocal altruism mean we're nice to others because the favour may be returned one day and generally speaking in individuals in a social species have a better chance at survival working with others than if they go on their own.

Evolution has given us the ability to learn and adapt our behaviour as required because its not possible to encode a full set of complex behaviours in our DNA. Kids steal from each other because they are still in the process of learning the consequences of their actions. They'll soon learn that stealing generally has negative consequences and also that working with other children means that they can do more.

Religion is a form of cultural inheritence that has dominated the stage for some time now. Its innevitable that its therefore played a major role in the perpetuation of moral values down the generation but this does not mean that its the source of morality itself. We could quite happily remove religion from the equation and parents would continue to pass their moral outlook onto their children and kids will continue to learn how to best survive in their environment.

 

[redcom11]

First, let me make a suggestion. If you're responding to someone, you should quote them. I assume this was directed at me, though.

Now, I don't see what this discussion of the big bang has to do with the assertion "I have a lack of belief in the existence of science". Whether or not you agree with the big bang theory is irrelevant to the existence of science. The fact that there is a big bang theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of science. And I don't see how that's related to the false claim that not believing in something is also a belief system.

1. Quoting you as directed

2. Whether or not you agree with the big bang theory is irrelevant to the existence of science. The fact that there is a big bang theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of science.

how is this different from

Whether or not you agree with the creationist theory is irrelevant to the existence of God. The fact that there is a creationist theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of God.

Kindly elaborate.

 

[AfterGlow]

The 'ultimate truth' may well be a claim that religious people make. However, even a cursory glance at the history of religion reveals that religion is just as vulnerable to examination and rejection as a scientific theory. Not to go too far, but Judaism led to Christianity, which in turn led to Islam. It may not be scientifically correct, that is another argument, but in as much as its nature to 'examination and rejection' is concerned, it is not that different.

I think it is quite different. Splinter groups aren't really the same as alternative theories, as they aren't born from "examination and rejection" as you suggest, but usually from some new revelation or rejection of an aspect of the current faith people don't like.

Also, theories may not be put up with the label 'ultimate truth' attached to them, but they are not put up to be proven wrong. When they are put up, they are put up as what is believed to be the truth and presented as such. When science is explained to the non-scientific it is not with a warning that reads "may be subject to change without prior notice or even complete negation. use at own risk."

They are put up to be proven wrong, that's what science is all about, coming up with a hypothesis and then conducting experiments to see if the observations can disprove the hypothesis.
Also, people are aware that science is constantly discovering new things, they don't need a warning label.

PS: Where can I learn to use quotes like you guys do?

There is a little quote button at the bottom right of my post, if you click it it'll open up a reply with my post quoted inside. If you want to have lots of little quotes like mine, you'll need to separate out the paragraphs and copy-paste the beginning and end of the

tags around each block of text. At least that's how I do it.

 

[Magic Man]

1. Quoting you as directed

Thank you! And to break up a post into different posts, just make sure the quote tags are around the part of the post you want quoted. Those tags are [ quote ] before and [ /quote ] after, but without the spaces. For instance, with your post, I just put [ /quote ] after this first part of your post, and then I put the tags around the other parts where I want to break it up.

2. Whether or not you agree with the big bang theory is irrelevant to the existence of science. The fact that there is a big bang theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of science.

how is this different from

Whether or not you agree with the creationist theory is irrelevant to the existence of God. The fact that there is a creationist theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of God.

Kindly elaborate.

OK, science is what produced the big bang theory. We can see that science is responsible for it, since it was the method used. The fact that the scientific theory exists is proof that science exists. It doesn't mean the theory is accurate or even correct, but it does mean science exists. To make your comparison more accurate, it would be:

"Whether or not you agree with the creationist theory is irrelevant to the existence of creationism. The fact that there is a creationist theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of creationism."

 

[redcom11]

I think it is quite different. Splinter groups aren't really the same as alternative theories, as they aren't born from "examination and rejection" as you suggest, but usually from some new revelation or rejection of an aspect of the current faith people don't like.

I must clarify here, I am not a devoutly religious person. In fact, I swing from a believer to an atheist, depending on how bad my day was. However, I have been doing some reading for some time now and I want to put the beliefs of an atheist to test. Like an experiment, if you like.

Now to your statement, what you state is largely true, but not completely so. It is true for the Abrahamic tradition, but not true for religions that brink on philosophy.

For example, the oath of a Yogi (a person on a path of self discovery) encourages him or her to examine and then literally reject all he or she knows. Evidently, there is no truth other than self discovered truth.

The oath is:
"Bhu sannyastha maya" (The physical world which includes the body and all objects of the world is renounced)
"Bhuva sannyastha maya" (The astral world which includes the emotions and all ancestors is renounced)
"Sva sannyastha maya" (The celestial world which includes higher thoughts and all gods is renounced)

So you see, there is a tradition of examination, even if not popular or well known. After reading this, I couldn't help but keep thinking about the last oath. Gods are renounced??

They are put up to be proven wrong, that's what science is all about, coming up with a hypothesis and then conducting experiments to see if the observations can disprove the hypothesis.
Also, people are aware that science is constantly discovering new things, they don't need a warning label.

Are people really aware? I think that is a presumption. If people were really aware they would not place implicit faith in doctors (remember thalidomide). Till five hundred years back, people believed that the world was flat because the scientist told them so. And till very recently, in fact even now in some places, we believe that fossil fuels are good for us because they are good for the economy and for a long time the scientists told us so.

The problem with most religion vs science debates is that the loony bins of the religious world are pitted against the brilliance of science. Why not also look at the profound discoveries of science and sometimes at the failure of science.

Also, most of the younger people I speak with here are either unaware or refuse to accept the fact that in almost all traditions till very recently the priests were the scientists.

Monsignor Georges Lemaître, the man who propounded the Big Bang theory was a priest. The tradition of religion and science going their separate ways if fairly recent. And we all know how bitter separations can be

There is a little quote button at the bottom right of my post, if you click it it'll open up a reply with my post quoted inside. If you want to have lots of little quotes like mine, you'll need to separate out the paragraphs and copy-paste the beginning and end of the

tags around each block of text. At least that's how I do it.

Have implemented what you hypothesized. Now, we will examine results to ascertain the validity of your claim. Unfortunately, that is only possible once I post and once I do that I can't thank you.

So thank you in advance.

 

[redcom11]

OK, science is what produced the big bang theory. We can see that science is responsible for it, since it was the method used. The fact that the scientific theory exists is proof that science exists. It doesn't mean the theory is accurate or even correct, but it does mean science exists. To make your comparison more accurate, it would be:

"Whether or not you agree with the creationist theory is irrelevant to the existence of creationism. The fact that there is a creationist theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of creationism."

In that case, your earlier argument also stands corrected:

"Whether or not you agree with the big bang theory is irrelevant to the existence of science. The fact that there is a big bang theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of science."

It should now read:

"Whether or not you agree with the big bang theory is irrelevant to the existence of the theory. The fact that there is a big bang theory to disagree with is proof of the existence of the theory."

Just as the creationist theory and its subsequent failure is no proof of God, similarly the Big Bang theory and, what now appears to be its imminent failure, is no proof of science.

Revisit, rethink and repost. Cheers.